A third murder committed by a right-wing extremist? Eh, worth a link, sure. Obama administration…
Read more Read more

I'd previously had a friendly relationship with Breitbart. We chatted occasionally—I kept in touch with him largely in the hopes that one day he would drop his guard and begin dishing about his mentor Matt Drudge—and even argued amiably about politics. But my post—which implied that Drudge and the New York Post covered the Van Brunn and George Tiller shootings less enthusiastically than they would have had the shooters not been motivated by right-wing hatred—enraged Breitbart. He accused me of "fucking slander" for calling Van Brunt an extremist on the right, and argued that the neo-Nazi was in fact a "multiculturalist just like the black studies and the lesbian studies majors on college campuses."

I posted the audio on Gawker. That action resulted in what stands to this day as the most epic, grueling IM fight I have ever had with anyone other than my wife. In two chats over three days, Breitbart and I went back and forth for nearly 10,000 words. Most of it was spent fighting over whether it was fair to describe a neo-Nazi as "right-wing," something I regarded as self-evident. Over the course of it, Breitbart repeatedly called me a "fucking liar," said I was working to censor him and "emboldening the Napalitano narrative," and accused me of working in concert with the Obama administration to "warm up" the public for the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

Former Drudge alter ego Andrew Breitbart thinks James von Brunn was a "multiculturalist just…
Read more Read more

Looking back, I'm not sure that either of us came out of it looking very good. But the doggedness, obsessiveness, and rage that suffused Breitbart's ideological ballet says a lot, I think, about who he was, for good and ill. Needless to say, irrespective of who he was and what he did, I wish Breitbart were still alive and feel awful for his children. Here are the chats, unedited. The first one begins with me sending a link of the voicemail post to Breitbart.

AIM IM with Andrew Breitbart 6/11/09 5:03 PM

John Cook: http://gawker.com/5287371/andrew-breitbart-holocaust-museum-killer-was-a-multiculturalist
Andrew Breitbart: put the whole voicemailAB: not the selct one

JC: listenJC: it's all there

AB: i am saying that there is no clear distiction between white supremacy and the multicultual mindsetAB: he is a_ anti- bushAB: anti mccainAB:anti neo CONAB: as in neo CONSERVATIVEAB: hates israel — unlike the rightAB: he fit the CURRENT LEFT in the way his mind thinks than anyone on the right i can nameAB: he thinks RACE MATTERSAB: i sure the hell dont

JC: so it's a smear to try to use it for political gain by aligning him with an end of the ideological spectrumJC: but he's got a lot in common with the left

AB: i believe in mixed marriages. perhaps more than racially pure ones. just to get this separate but equal PC crap out of our lives.AB: i am fighting back your slanderAB: and you are not aloneAB:but you are politically motivated, thats for effin sureAB: he hated BUSH CHENEY, NEO CONS

JC: and if you're unfamiliar with the ling history of anti-semitic right wing anti-israel ideology, i don't know what to tell youJC: john birch society? were they right wing or not?

AB: yet now people that support bush, cheney and neo cons are on the defensive?! thats crazy!

JC: he tried to kidnap members of the fed

AB: thanks for making the distinctionAB: you SLIKME traditional right wingers without making a MASSIVE MASSIVE firewallAB: and its intentionalAB: you are enjoying it

AB: and thats what makes PC so EVIL. is that it applies the EVIL thinking of white supremacists wherein their blood line takes greater import than the individual.AB: and hence my analogy!

JC: i agree with you on group rights

AB: to being a multiculturalist.AB: thats my pointAB: i have ZERO lineage with the john birchersAB: im a fucking Jew.AB: NONEAB: he wanted to pop bill effin kristol

JC: is pat buchanan a right-winger?

AB: and you cant see why im otraged that WE HABV?E TO EXPLAIN FOR THE GUY?!AB: ask pat what he thinks about this guy.

JC: is he on the right wing politically?

AB: that could do some reporting if you can find an aberrant right winger in the maisntream that sympathizes with him.

AB: copare hi to buchananAB: be my guest and enjoy the lawsuit.

JC: is pat buchanan on the right wing of the ideological spectrum?

AB: i dont think of buchanan as a white supremacist. but you could slander him as such.

JC: but is he right or left?JC: i mean, i'm not saying the guy was a mainstream republican

AB: my point is

JC: i'm saying he is situated on the EXTREME right side of the political spectrum

AB: in the current formulationAB: of groups rights uber allesAB: LEFT

JC: so pat buchanan is a leftist?

AB: just because the left abhors when WHITES do it, but its OK when 'minorities' do it.AB: its still the same way of thinking.AB: make the argument how buchanan and this asshole are on the same ideological side. Please.

JC: pat buchanan has minimized the holocaustJC: he has rationalized the rise of nazism

AB: so that is a right wing POV?

JC: he opposes the policies of israelJC: i'm asking you

AB: minimizing the holocaust is a right wing phenomenon?

JC: i'm giving you the ideas that pat buchanan and this guy have in common

AB: there are MORE on the left who do that.

JC: and asking you if pat buchanan is a right winger

AB: but those are not RIGHT WING ideasAB: MANY LEFTIES deny holocaustAB: and im not saying buchanan does.

JC: he doesn't deny it

AB: lefties side with islamists that want CURRENT destruction of israel.

JC: ok so you're furious when you're associated with this guy

AB: NO

JC: and then you associate leftists with islamists who want to kill all jews

AB: im furious at your intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.AB: von brun is not a conservative.AB: and you are doing the lefts biddingAB: by creating a relationship between obaama's right wing political enemies and this guy.AB: david duke was against the iraq warAB: so were youAB: i wouldnt associate you and him

JC: that's because it's self-evident that we don't share any other ideas

AB: you are fIXATED in your piece on associating this guy with the current right.AB: and the best you can do is: pat buchanan.

JC: von brunn's ideas are part and parcel of a long and illustrious string of right wing EXTREMISM

AB: so what ideas does this guy share with those on the right?

JC: hatred of the fedJC: michelle bachmann

AB: left has that too!

JC: et al

AB: you are being so ridiculosuly disingenuousAB: this is about trying to attack the current right wing critics of the adminAB: when they share NOTHING in common with this guy.AB: that is your posts intent.

JC: you should own your ideasJC: i don't think you want to hurt or kill anyone

AB: my own ideas have nothing in comon with his.AB: NOTHING.

JC: and that's not what i'm saying by calling the guy a right wing extremist

AB: you are trying to tie, like KOS, huffpo, this actAB: with the admins current ideological enemiesAB: and on substantive issues of the last decade the s called far right have AGREED with the hard left on issues of iraq, anti-government fervor.

JC: and if a WTO protester killed someone, and you called him a left-wing extremistJC: i wouldn't freak out about itJC: because it would be true

AB: you are trying to embolden the clamp down on our free speech and dimunition of our points of dissent by drawing a line between US and EVIL.

JC: who's clamping down on your free speech?

AB: this is emboldening the napolitano narrative

JC: by the way i find it hysterical that one of the people who spent the last decade equating dissent from Bush policy with support for terrorists is complaining about the drawing of lines

AB: of the right out of control

JC: yeah where would anyone get that idea?

AB: FIND ME ONCE DOING THAT!!@#!#@!AB: thats a canard and a strawmanAB: PATHETICAB: changing the subject

JC: ok i've got an appt at 6JC: i don't want to stopJC: but i've gotta goJC: when i have more time i will try to write a substantive response

After that chat, Breitbart wrote a column about what he regarded as the "specious ideological slander" of associating Von Brunn with the extreme right wing. In it, he acknowledged that the right had flirted with racism and anti-Semitism in the past. I IM'd him with a quote from that column.

AIM IM with Andrew Breitbart 6/15/09 3:11 PM

JC: "It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century."JC: So there was a time when it was appropriate to refer to anti-Semitic neo-Nazis as right-wing extremists?JC: But just not anymore"JC: ?

AB: dude, the dems have robert byrd. if it is foud out von whatever his name is is a registered DEM i STILL won't use it to besmirch the left!

JC: When von Brunn was in his 30s, he was a right-wing extremist?

AB: your entire point was to make the right answerr for him when he has more in common with the left when analyzed.AB: im not comparing him to the left to make the left answer for him.AB: im responding to your standing slander

JC: But you admit that he had something in common with what the right wing USED to be

AB: which is motivated by a pandering desire to hurt the right, and give your DUMB readership its feelgood leftist jollies.

JC: 50 years ago

AB: there were RACISTS ON THE LEFT TOO!

JC: You don't get anywhere arguing my motivations

AB: demsAB: byrdAB: dixiecrats

JC: Byrd is a democrantJC: he is most certainly not a leftistJC: at least in any sense i can see

AB: SOCIALISMAB: is a leftist constructAB: and socialism is a populist default for populist racists

JC: I think leftism is a bit overdetermined in your analysis

AB: to say that the republican party has a RACIST past it needs to apologize for is a very narrow and opportunistic way of looking at things, especially with the dems history.

JC: So Byrd and Bill Ayers are ideological compatriots in your view?

AB: i stand by my piece. thoroughly.AB: youre the one trying to tie the right to this, im not.

JC: But you acknowledge that there was a time when the term "right wing extremist" would have been appropriate

AB: it doesnt fit well on your incorrect political map.

JC: just not in the past 50 years, right?

AB: no

JC: It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century.JC: When it was Lindbergh's party, would it have been appropriate?

AB: right, but i am not saying this guy AND von brunn have anything in common other than racism.AB: i have NO IDEA if they have similar viewsAB: on enough things to constitue him right or leftAB: you are working off ONLY RACISM

JC: is there such thing as a right-wing extremist?

AB: as your reason to slander the right as being the only place where racism has ever existedAB: and it's STUPID, really stupid/

JC: seriously—describe a right-wing extremist?

AB: your the accuser!AB: my piece explains itsselfAB: try to rip on it at gawkerAB: find the weakness in my columnAB: i am NOT accusing him of being a leftieAB: i am analyzing him on WHAT WE KNOW OF HIMAB: and MORE THINGS ADD up to the current leftAB: than the current right

JC: which is the same thing as accusing him of being a leftie

AB: and all you can hang your hat on is he is a rACIST

JC: and anti-semite

AB: therefore he must be a right wing extremist

JC: and fed-haterJC: and neo-nazi

AB: enjoy yourself.

JC: i was asking a serious question

AB: my column speaks for itself.

JC: about the lindhberg party

AB: it wasnt HIS PARTYAB: im simply stating that there was a timeAB: when BOT parties had racists in itAB: when the country has regressive attitudesAB: that were accepted in both parties

JC: so even then, it wouldn't have been appropriate to describe him as a right-wing extremist

AB: but the GOP has absolutely hoovered itself from any vestige of racismAB: NOAB: obviously not

JC: there are no racists in the GOP?

AB: he is against bush, fox news, pro socialismAB: he is a lone nut conspiracy theorist whose politics is complicated by his madness and you are tryig to make the right be held to account for it.

AB: 3and it wont flyAB: you are wrong to have perpetuated the slanderAB: but you are in large, bad companyAB: so feel good you have strength in numbersAB: of disingenuous leftistsAB: who want to create free speech problems for peopel like me

JC: so i'm censoring you?

AB: this is about warming people up on legislationAB: like fairness doctrine

JC: or is obama censoring you?

AB: i didnt accuse me of CENSORING YOUAB: ME

JC: you're trafficking in conspiracy

AB: jesus. you are putting the MAINSTREEAM RIGHT IN A BOXAB: a racist boxAB: so that we can be legislated into obscurity

JC: no one is bringing back the fairness doctrine

AB: becauee our thoughts are HATE CRIMES in the making.

JC: your tilting at windmills

AB: this is the BS that passes as educationAB: .no, you are.AB: read my column. it is airtight.AB: you want the right to ADMIT it has a lineage with this guy.

JC: i want you to acknowledge reality

AB: so you can draw the correlation that the right is OUT OF CONTROL and countenances anti-semetic crap and racism.AB: BUT WE DONT. PERIOD.

JC: i want you to understand the meaning of the word "extremism"

AB: you're the one who lives in a gawker snark fest of unreality.AB: where you can just insult peopleAB: and throw ad hominensAB: .and call it journalism

JC: and understand that describing him as an extremist in and of itself distinguishes people like you from him

AB: BS

JC: and if you want to get into motivationsJC: you're not arguing rationally or earnestly

AB: why are you DEMANDING that right wing media embrace him as one of their own?

JC: you're desperate to distance yourself from this guy

AB: when he has nothing in common ideologicallyAB: NOTHINGAB: NOTHING

JC: so you're inventing history and inventing ideological curlicues

AB: WHAT DOES HE HAVE IN COMMON IDEOLOGICALLYAB: WITH THE MAINSTREAM RIGHT?

JC: HE'S AN EXTREMIST

AB: when he has TONS IN COMMONAB: with the mainstream left.

JC: no one said he was mainstream

AB: you live in a leftie media bubble, dude.

JC: he comes from a long line of anti-semitic, nativist thinking that has forever been associated with the right wing in this country

AB: i used to be a liberal.AB: left leaning.AB: ROBERT BYRDAB: you only know he hates blacks and jews

JC: am i saying robert byrd's not a racist?

AB: why are you not asking robert byrd to disassociuate himself from him?

JC: the fact that robert byrd is a democrat is irrelevant to your argument

AB: and DEMS for their KKK history?AB: this guy is a KKK minded guy

JC: he's the last of dozens of nativist, racist RIGHT WING democrats that used to dominate the south

AB: why arent souther dems held to account?

JC: BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY ANYMOER

AB: yes there are

JC: they're all republicans now

AB: ROBERT BYRDAB: thats not true!

JC: byrd=helms

AB: fucking liar

JC: same tradition

AB:BSAB: stop thisAB: you are annoying me, you already tried to frame me like a loonAB: when i have only been helpful to youAB: historically

JC: i didn't frame you like a lookJC: nJC: i posted your VM

AB: my column speaks for itself.AB: Crazy voicemails, James von brunn, AB, Terrorism, TopAB: We were going to draw up a reasoned response, and talk about the roots of right-wing radicalism, nativism, the John Birch Society, etc. But you know what? He's right. James von Brunn is exactly like a lesbian studies major. Well played, Andrew.AB: FUCK OFF

JC: alright

AB: you have ZERO self knowledge

JC: let the record show i actually tried to argue this with you

AB: you continue to try to be rude to me using your public forumn

JC: and not hurl all caps insults

AB: you are trying to put me in this guys campAB: and i will not accept itAB: i havent assaulted you verbally. or put my politics in the same space as a NAZI!

JC: you regularly put my politics in the same space as stalin

AB: where?

JC: but that's ok?

AB: i tie you to it?AB: where?AB: thats insane

JC: ok hold on—you're going to make me find you talking about leftists and communism?

AB:make you find?AB: you just made the assertion!AB: FREE MARKET THINKINGAB: individual libertiesAB: that which the right stands forAB: has EXACT opposite to doAB: with this guyAB: and you are asking people who stand for "FREE MARKET THINKING
individual liberties"AB: to account for a non existent ideological relationship.AB: we dont countenance the von brunns in ANY WAY>AB: yet you make us have to account for it.AB: that is what spawned the righteous and factually correct voicemailAB: that i elaborated on in an airthight argument.AB: in wash times.

JC: "Funny - or maybe not - how the Left doesn't contribute a well-orchestrated propagandistic effort to argue against the likes of Saddam. Or Arafat. Or Mugabe and Mobuto. Or, well... supply your own out-of-control murderous world leader. For that matter, they don't much like looking back at such like-minded monsters of the past as Stalin or Pol Pot, whose paths to utopia demanded the extermination of those who dissented."JC: like-minded

AB: i will not write a column expalining why you and stalin are not related. or how i never made the comparison either.AB: yes the CURRENT leftAB: has a DIRECT relationshipAB: with apologizing for murderous socialist totalitarian thugsAB: AS IN NOWAB: as in lefties STILL apologizing for alger hissAB: and countless other collaborators

JC: ok so let's review:

AB: sean penn going to cubaAB: venezuelaAB: THERE IS NO CURRENT CONNECTIONAB: between von brunn and the people you are tryingto tie him to.

JC: i'm not tying him to peopleJC: i'm tying him to a political tradition

AB: the only reason you would demand they play him up is to be held accountable for his existence when they have NOTHING to do with itlAB: the political tradition of which i speak is ALIVE and well.AB: it is the left on the CURRENT college campus

JC: so we're back to my question

AB: and is self avowed leftAB: the only reason you would demand they play him up is to be held accountable for his existence when they have NOTHING to do with

JC: there WAS a branch of right-wing thinking that was nativist, racist, and ant-semiticJC: right?

AB: yes.

JC: okJC: thanksJC: when did it die?

AB: READ MY COLUMNAB: i wrote over 50 years ago

JC: some point more than 50 years agoJC: okJC: so when von brunn was in his 30s

AB: NO

JC: he ceased to be right wing

AB: we dont know that

JC: at some point in his thirties

AB: you are only using what little outlineAB: we have on himAB: the CALL was based on you asking people who have nothing to do with his line of thinking to own up to an ideological relationship.

AB: and it DESERVED a SLAPDOWN.

JC: so you claim to know that the right-wing became cleansed of nativism, anti-semitism and racismJC: but you don't know when?

AB: you are expanding the context of my 'crazy' VM

JC: i'm asking you questions based on your column

AB: you tried to make MURDOCKAB: and DRUDGEAB: who are the OBJECTS of his hatred

JC: was it cleansed of antisemitism when richard nixon was complaining about "cheap kikes" in the white house?

AB: to have to apologize for him!

JC: when he complained that the "IRS was full of jews"?JC: the right wing, at that point, when richard nixon was saying those things, had been cleansed of anti-semitism?

AB: isolate the contextAB: of my VM

JC: i'm talking about your column

AB: my column is dead onAB: .and your slur to murdoch and drudge was lame as hell.AB: and i stand by every 'drunken' word on the VM.

JC: your column claims without evidence that the right-wing poltical tradition had been cleansed of anti-semitism nativism and racism at some unspecified point int he past

AB: of course it has

JC: you acknowledge that those strains were thereJC: and now they're gone

AB: IT HAS BEEN CLEANSEDAB: there is ZERO evidence of it being accepted or acceptable

JC: so why was richard nixon talking abotu "cheap kikes"?

AB: i guarantee you that TODAYAB: 1 million democrats used that wordAB: and that the dem party leaders TOO are

JC: i'm not claiming that the left is free of anti-semitismJC: it's obviously not

AB: it is not an ideological componentAB: of nixon's LEGACYAB: it was private discussionAB: and not a platformAB: or a policy derived from that sentiment.AB: in fact he wasa great friend of ISRAEL!AB: jesus!

JC: so he wasn't an anti-semite?

AB: look at the conextAB: of my message

JC: jordan is a friend of israel

AB: it matters not a whit!

JC: nominally

AB: both sides have assholesAB: DUH!

JC: yes!

AB: but you are tying murdock and drudge to the guyAB: for NOT calling him a right winger

JC: why can't you admit that von brunn is a right wing asshole?

AB: noAB: all you have on him is that he is a racistAB: and anti israel

JC: i don't care if murdoch and drudge call him a right-winger

AB: you wrote that

JC: my point was they downplayed it

AB: that was the context of the VM!

JC: not that they called him by the wrong nameJC: go read the post

AB: you want the right to have to own up to himAB: when he has nothing to do with themAB: NOTHING

JC: i want them to pay attention to him and alert their readers

AB: and his current philosophies more resemble people in control of the leftAB: but we didnt do that!AB: people on the rightAB: because he is a lone nut!

JC: think about what you're saying

AB: whose philosophiesare crazy

JC: so the nyt is in your view a left wing paper, right?

AB: and across the ideological spectrumAB: and we still dont know everything about him let alone THAT DAYAB: when there was only sketchy info

JC: the nyt should only cover the things that the left acknowledges responsibility for?JC: i wasn't saying that the post and drudge should own up to it

AB: you are tellign me that they didnt ocver those stories?

JC: i was saying they should cover itJC: they downplayed that story

AB: hardly!

JC: drudge did a one-line linkJC: and gave bullshit about exec pay a siren

JC: you're right about drudgeAB: fucking aAB: all ive asked for is context of my vmailAB: and this is it!AB: BAD REPORTING!!!!

JC: ?

AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'AB: '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST' '89-YEAR OLD WHITE SUPREMACIST'AB: thats as exclamation point as you are going to getAB: when singular acts of murder happen EVERY DAY

JC: go look at the post

AB: hundreds of times

JC: a screengrab of the drudge headline about von brunn is thereJC: when i just said it was a one-line linkJC: i was confusing it with tillerJC: which WAS a one-line link

AB: you exhaust meAB: i continue to prove your logic wrongAB: and your assertionsAB: my VM was a contextually based LOGICAL responseAB: to your MISSING one bigtimeAB: over von brunnAB: and trying to make people held to account who have DONE NOTHING WRONG

JC: yes it was exceedingly logical, andrewJC: i was accusing matt drudge and rupert murdoch of murder, obviouslyJC: and you as well

AB: the logical mindset of the post structural 'studies' gradAB: validates the worst aspectsAB: of the supremacist mindsetAB: but because they are 'victim' groups its OK!

JC: so here's my question

AB: AZTLAN!AB: look it upAB: it is centerpiece of the chicano studies programsAB: supremacy minded educationAB: my comparison takes into account the IRONYAB: of thisAB: you understand that i get that it is IRONICAB: but it is true nonetheless

JC: can you name a chicano studies or lesbian studies or black studies major who's ever shot anyone?JC: seriously asked

AB: yesAB: countless black panthersAB: why shoot someone when you are IN POWER!AB: they control the education deptsAB:white trash racists are actually on the outside looking inAB: they are the lower class dregs

JC: the black panthers control the dept of education?

AB: who are the one disempowered group in the multicultural pantheon.AB: MUMIAAB: is a heroAB: on the college campusAB: for shooting a 'pig'AB: so dont tell me there isnt a murderous component to the leftAB: by those motivated by their racialist minded righteousnessAB: my sister is mexican FYI

JC: i was actually asking whether any chicano studies or black studies or lesbian studies major had shot anyone

AB: im sure they have

JC: and mumia to my knowledge wasn't a black studies major

AB: what does that have to do with anything?

JC: and the black panthers predated black studies depts

AB: im talking about their MINDSETS

JC: i think

AB: not on how they act on the mindsetAB: because the majority of white supremacists dont shoot people eitherAB: i AM NT DEFENDING WHITE SUPREMACISTS FYI. my values system is pro death penaltyAB: and i hope von brunn is put to deathAB: ASAPAB: so you are showing a leniency i wont.AB: and where were you on the army muslim killer?AB: why not compare drudge's treatment of thatAB: to the tillerAB: effin GIS gunned down by a self avowed jihadistAB: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/06/01/20090601_183914.htmAB: SAME PAGEAB: 3 on abortion near top of 3rd columnAB: NOT A 'single' linkAB: as you falsely claimedAB: and MUCH lowerAB: a single link to the recruitment story

JC: that was an isolated incident—there aren't waves of homegrown jihadis killing GIs

AB: yes there areAB: killing PEOPLE!

JC: where?

AB: killing infidels

JC: in the states?

AB: THREE LINKS!!!!AB: 3you said oneAB: you AGAIN lied, er, misreported

JC: i said "one link" here, in this IM chat

AB: and thats only ONE snapshot

JC: obviously i was wrongJC: i put up the screengrab and made the point that he was underplaying it

AB: there's multiple days of coverage of the story

JC: that was from the morning of

AB: yes, selective and wrong.AB: but i could care less about you and your drudge obsessionAB: seriously

JC: well of course it's selective

AB: selctively as in wrong

JC: everything that goes on every site is selectedJC: what did i get wrong, exactly?

AB: you make a false asseriton

JC: where?

AB: link me the piece

JC: And we didn't see it last week, after an anti-abortion jihadist murdered George Tiller. Susan Boyle got top billing on that morning.JC: http://gawker.com/5287136/drudge-would-rather-not-dwell-on-right+wing-terrorism

AB: i was workignoff your IMsAB: on single linkAB: Nothing to see here, people. Move along.AB: is hardly the caseAB: when for multiple days he multiple links itAB: but isnt that the glory of having your own sitesAB: to play up what matters to you how you want

JC: YESJC: and they played down an attack by a right-wing extremist

AB: he is NOTAB: its pathetic

JC: your position is that there's no such thing as a right-wing extremistAB: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/06/10/20090610_190200.htmAB: undermines your argument

JC: someone who loves freedom too much i guessJC: look at the post!

AB: id say timothy mcveigh

JC: it's screengrabbed

AB: is a better example of a right wing extremist

JC: TIMOTHY MCVEIGH WAS A RACIST ANTI-SEMITE

AB: because he was anti governmentAB: ask the libertarians to explain it away

JC: mcveigh was every bit the neo-nazi that von brunn is

AB: they have more in commonAB: but you arent at war politically with them

AB: why not ask ron paulites to explain it awayAB: ron paul is more akinAB: to von brunn

JC: it's part of the political continuumJC: you are on it

AB: TONS of lefties

JC: von brunn is on it

AB: in R. paul campAB: but you wanted CONSERVASTIVES

JC: you admit that mcveigh is on your side of it

AB: to have to pay for him

JC: but on von brunn

AB: not paul and the kooksAB: murdoh is a fucking australisn

JC: even though mcveigh's and von brunn's politics are virtually identical

AB: thats not trueAB: my column stands

JC: rupert murdoch is an american

AB: so the second you become an american

JC: he renounced his australian citizenshipJC: also

AB: and you are a conservativeAB: who reads milton friedmanAB: you have to apologize for racists

JC: there are right and left wings in australian politics

AB: for whom you have no ideological lineage?AB: where is bobby jindal to explain away von brunn?!

JC: am i asking you to apologize?

AB: you are asking us to embrace him as one of our OWN!?AB: its worseAB: and we wont do it.AB: he ISNT

JC: but he would have been at some undetermined point more than 50 years agoJC: before the Great Cleansing

AB: whereas the racialism of the leftie terrorist like ayers is CLEAR and present in current mainstream liberal politics.AB: your entire point is to TAR neo cons with himAB: when they are the exact oppositeAB: nothing to see here, move along!AB: as in: they are ignoring what they are connected to and continue to propogate.AB: when its NOT TRUE!AB: neo cons are an enormous reason why the lindberghs are no longer in the party.

JC: clearlyJC: they were able to keep nixon outJC: and pat buchanan

AB: and you are asking for drudge, a jew, and murdock a pro warrior to PLAY UP a guy as one of their own!

JC: alsoJC: who cares about the party?JC: no one's talking about the republican party

AB: ITS completely screwed up reasoning and a slander by sleight of hand!

JC: i'm talking about the right wing of american politics

AB: and im telling you that the left has MORE IN COMMON with him nowAB: anti-israelAB: conservatives prop up israelAB: leftists want to bring it downAB: for better or worse!

JC: so support for israel is inconsistent with anti-semitism?JC: didn't you just say that nixon was a huge friend to israel?

AB: very much so. by defintion!AB: you are parsing to try and get you a place you arent going to go.AB: the left has more to explain in current atmosphere for fomenting anti-israelAB: anti jewish sentimentAB: that would enrage a von brunn to act last weekAB: than the collective rigth leaning mainstream writing and politicies of last 40 years

JC: jesus you don't understand what extremism is

AB: von brunn would get an erction from teh anti semitism on a college campus today

JC: no one said he was mainstreamJC: or influenced by mainstream right wing thoughtJC: at least i didn't

AB: you are asking people to openly connect to their POV who are openly repulsed and have the exact opposite POV.AB: its insaneAB: drudge defined him for what he wasAB: a white supremacistAB: in MASSIVE BOLD LETTERSAB: ABOVE THE FOLDAB: NOT MUCH MORE HE COULD DO

JC: Or in other words, a lesbian studies fanaticJC: he could have done a siren!

AB: patheticAB: grwat job

JC: i think you just don't get that there is such a thing as extremism, which can be distinguished from mainstream political thinking

AB: it is ANYHTING but the definition of your 'nothing to see here , move along!!!!'AB: EXACT oppositeAB: his MOTIVATION AND IDENTITY WERE MADE FRON TOF CENTER!AB: how often does that happenAB: in RAREST OF RARE

JC: i don't know

AB: double above the fold headline

JC: how often does a siren happen?

AB: far less than siren

JC: only when someone DOESN'T rein in exec pay?

AB: and i have NO IDEAAB: if there was a sirten or notAB: some times he does siren

JC: and then gets accused by drudge of reining in exec pay?

AB: for 3 minutesAB: do you know for sure he didnt do siren?

JC:if he did it's not in the archivesJC: go check for yourself

AB: answer the questionAB: do you know for sure he didnt do siren?AB: are you a reporter?AB: what is a reporter supposed to do, john?

JC: i think they call this proving a negative

AB: how many sources do you have that there was no siren?AB: you made the assertionAB: and made it seem like he was playing it downAB: ABOVE THE FOLDAB: is not playing it downAB: DOUBLE HEADLINE is not playing it downAB: playing up he is a WHITE SUPREMECISTAB: is not playing it downAB: CASE CLOSEDAB: in factAB: it is PLAYING IT UP! BIGTIME.

JC: he played it beneath a bullshit story about exec pay that was the opposite of his headline

AB: no he didnt!

JC: he thinks claiming—falsely—that obama wants to rein in exec pay is more important than von brunn

AB: you are not well.AB: theres nothing to see hereAB: move alongAB: my godAB: that is a CRAZY misreportingAB: on how he DID play it upAB: your report is FALSEAB: as to how he played it up

JC: but it didn't merit a sirenJC: when lies about exec pay do

AB: are you some drudge alogist?

JC: ?JC: don't follow you

AB: he PLAYED IT UP — BIGTIMEAB: im not him so i cant get into the MINUTIAEAB: of what is more importantAB: a RAREAB: above the fold doubleheadline

JC: he played it up right to the point where it gets a siren and then stopped

AB: why would drudge feel that this needs to be played down?AB: when he PLAYED IT UPAB: it was only after the FACTAB: that you guys are saying hes a RIGTH WINGERAB: i would imagine he only saw RACIST ANTI SEMITE!AB: and given drudge is a jewAB: would think he was a BAD GUYAB: the right wing thing is your after the fact response — and its delusional.AB: you were trying to make the event something that its WASNTAB: when it was happening!AB: and what it was when it was happening was SIGNIFANCTAB: very significantAB: and not seen as it was happening in the right left spectrumAB: it was a BREAKING STORYAB: and the double headline MADE IT SO PROMIENT

JC: no of course there was no political element

AB: that people treated a lone shooting by a lone nutAB: out to be MASSIVE story

JC: absolutely he was a lone nut with no political beliefsJC: i mean sorryJC: he did have lesbian studies beliefsJC: but that's ITJC: no other political element to it

AB: you lost, so now you are resorting to 3rd grade tactics

JC: which one of us has been engaging in ad hominem attacks?JC: who told whom to fuck off?JC: i'm trying to have an argument with you

AB: my public debate with you has been far less damaging to you than to me

JC: you're yelling at me

AB: you made me look like an ass.AB: on purposeAB: i stand by what i saidAB: but you tried to frame me as nuts

JC: you framed yourself

AB: and i havent done shit to you in responseAB: CRAZY CALLAB: it wasnt crazy

JC: no it was a reasoned response, andrew

AB: it had the contxt of our continuing to talk abou titAB: it is reasonedAB: my column explains it

JC: your column explains that, fifty plus years ago, it would not have been a FUCKING SLANDER to call von brunn a right-wing extremist

AB: your initila report is now shown to be an erroneous hitjob

JC: but that at some indeterminate point, it became oneJC: for reasons that you refuse to explain

AB: the gola of your columnAB: was to make people who are not guiltyAB: GUILTYAB: of his shameAB: and for sharing similar ideologyAB: and they dont. period.AB: it was the CONTEXTAB: of you calling him a right wingerAB: to make of all people — neo-cons — have to explain away the guy!AB: neo-cons of all people should be PRAISED by you

JC: who said neocons?

AB: for getting rid of them from the right!

JC: HOW?JC: WHEN?JC: by fiat?

AB: when you isolate murdock and drudgeAB: they are pro israel

JC: by proclamation?

AB: and pro jewAB: and you want to make it appear as if they have blood on their handsAB: when it is EXACT OPPOSITe

JC: fine so you've redifined anything that's not pro-israel and not pro-jew as no longer right wingJC: because you said soJC: so pat buchanan is not right wing

AB: the context is you saying they IGNORED itAB: when drudge didnt

JC: so show me where i said they ignored it

AB: and your parsing descrption of him playing it under another thing is simply stupid.

JC: why won't you answer me how and when the neocons expelled all racists and antisemites from the right wing?

AB: what an esoteric thing that has NOTHING to do with anything in the context of my factual column AND factual VM.AB:CONEXTAB: i would say that the 50s, where neo cons were made prominentAB: in the movementAB: the first anti-communistsAB: norman podhoretzAB: irving kristolAB: if there is a political goal to be MADE of this given CURRENT political alliances

JC: so there were no racist right-wingers in the 1960s?

AB: is how dangerous the LEFT% ISAB: in its pursuit of appeasing terrorsitsAB: in iraqAB: and palestiniansAB: and the left has a MOVE ALONG THERES NOTHING TO SEE HERE mentalityAB: about the bed theyve made with sundry antisemetics wihtout a home

JC: George Wallace wasn't a right-wing politician?

AB: NO!!!!!!!!!AB: he was populistAB: socialist policies

JC: so there's no such thing as a right-wing populist?

AB: wanted to give poor white people government goodies

JC: all populists are left-wing?

AB: you would like to make all racists right wingAB: i am saying the political spectrum is VERY expansiveAB: and you wan to simplify itAB: 3to hurt the right

JC: does it have a right and a left?

AB: it's not a straight line chartAB:

JC: ok so you are disputing the idea of putting political thinking on a right-left spectrum

AB:

AB: this oneAB: that one is editorialized

JC: so von brunn is a liberal, thenJC: and george wallace was a liberal

AB: im not making that pointAB: im saying the political chartAB: and political time confuse these things

JC: you're showing me a chart

AB: and you are tryig to make him something he sint

JC: on which von brunn could be one of three things on the left-right axis: liberal (left), centrist, or conservative (right)JC: so was he a liberal, a centrist, or a conservative?

AB: STATISTAB: big govmntAB: as were most

JC: but look at the chart

AB: WHITE TRASH

JC:it has two axesJC: you can't place him only on one of them

AB: no, you can BE THERE!AB: you dont have to be one or the other

JC: if you situate him on that chart, he has to either be liberal, centrist, or conservativeJC: this is your chart, not mineJC: of you put him down on a statist, he has to be SOMEWHERE on the left-right axis

AB: things that would suggest left:AB: he had a desire to get a pensionAB: .i would imagineAB: and govmnt money he felt was best hisAB: and his kindAB: and thinks HIS governmentAB: is paying for THEMAB: .not HIMAB: and screwed up his pipe dream of US of a racially directed big government that kept the other DOWN so he could live the good lifeAB: and milton friedman and abraham lincol, the founder of the GOP reject that.AB: was abraham lincoln an anti semite?

JC: i have no ideaJC: he was a racistJC: he was a racial seperatist

AB: well, ill grant you fitting in with the democrat media complex.AB: we dont think similarly.

JC: "there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality."